OT: Examples of centrifugal simulated gravity in movies.

[Stumpy]

In 2001: A Space Odyssey there was an extended scene with the astronaut
exercising in a spinning torus. In the upcoming Ender's Game movie I expect
some low gravity special effects.

Are there any good examples from SF movies that have been released?

I've read about many zero-gravity habitats, haven't seen very many.

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <ApidnbkNrKJuI6zS...@earthlink.com>,
peri...@spamnet.corn says...

>
> In 2001: A Space Odyssey there was an extended scene with the astronaut
> exercising in a spinning torus. In the upcoming Ender's Game movie I expect
> some low gravity special effects.
>
> Are there any good examples from SF movies that have been released?

Moonraker.

--
Juho Julkunen
For very loose definitions of 'good'

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <ApidnbkNrKJuI6zS...@earthlink.com>,

Didn't some film or other shoot some scenes in the Vomit Comet?

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.

[tphile2]

On Feb 7, 6:24 pm, Juho Julkunen <giaot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <ApidnbkNrKJuI6zSnZ2dnUVZ_redn...@earthlink.com>,
> perilm...@spamnet.corn says...

>
>
>
> > In 2001: A Space Odyssey there was an extended scene with the astronaut
> > exercising in a spinning torus.  In the upcoming Ender's Game movie I expect
> > some low gravity special effects.
>
> > Are there any good examples from SF movies that have been released?
>
> Moonraker.
>
> --
> Juho Julkunen
> For very loose definitions of 'good'

Moonraker is one of the worse examples as well as one of the worse
Bond movies. The satellite had a kind of basic wagon wheel design but
there was too long straight sections and iirc the "floor" was
perpendicular to the axis at a right angle up. So people were standing
parallel to the rotating axis, A merry go round design doesn't work
well in free gravity.

Good example
The russian ship in 2010.
Apollo 13 was very realistic with zero gravity.
For its time, some of the japanese SF movies handled it very well.
The Green Slime. Battle In Outer Space

[tphile2]

On Feb 7, 6:47 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> In article <ApidnbkNrKJuI6zSnZ2dnUVZ_redn...@earthlink.com>,
>

That would be the Ron Howard movie Apollo 13 starring Tom Hanks.
Thats how they fx the zero g scenes in the Apollo and LEM capsules

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On 2012-02-07 20:52:33 -0500, tphile2 said:

> On Feb 7, 6:47 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>> In article <ApidnbkNrKJuI6zSnZ2dnUVZ_redn...@earthlink.com>,
>>

>> Didn't some film or other shoot some scenes in the Vomit Comet?
>

> That would be the Ron Howard movie Apollo 13 starring Tom Hanks.

That would also be "The Uranus Experiment, Part 2" -- a porn film. Not
as well known as "Apollo 13," and no, I don't know how they managed it,
but yes, they have a genuine zero-G sex scene.



--
Now available on Amazon or B&N: One-Eyed Jack.
Greg Kraft could see ghosts. That didn't mean he could stop them...

[Stumpy]

>>>
>>> Didn't some film or other shoot some scenes in the Vomit Comet?
>>
>> That would be the Ron Howard movie Apollo 13 starring Tom Hanks.
>
> That would also be "The Uranus Experiment, Part 2" -- a porn film. Not as
> well known as "Apollo 13," and no, I don't know how they managed it, but
> yes, they have a genuine zero-G sex scene.
>
>

That sounds like fun. Probably not on Youtube, however.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <jgt1cc$dee$1...@dont-email.me>,

Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>On 2012-02-07 20:52:33 -0500, tphile2 said:
>
>> On Feb 7, 6:47 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>> In article <ApidnbkNrKJuI6zSnZ2dnUVZ_redn...@earthlink.com>,
>>>
>>> Didn't some film or other shoot some scenes in the Vomit Comet?
>>
>> That would be the Ron Howard movie Apollo 13 starring Tom Hanks.
>
>That would also be "The Uranus Experiment, Part 2" -- a porn film. Not
>as well known as "Apollo 13," and no, I don't know how they managed it,
>but yes, they have a genuine zero-G sex scene.

It couldn't have lasted very long.


--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."

[Mike Dworetsky]

Destination Moon (back in 1950) had some good scenes with zero G special
effects (such as they could do back then).

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Greg Goss]

"Stumpy" <peri...@spamnet.corn> wrote:

>In 2001: A Space Odyssey there was an extended scene with the astronaut
>exercising in a spinning torus. In the upcoming Ender's Game movie I expect
>some low gravity special effects.

They were careful about gravity and its simulation in that scene, and
in the zero-G bits on the way to the Space Station and the helmetless
transfer. But they had gravity in the pod bay and the computer core
room. Oops.
--
"Recessions catch what the auditors miss." (Galbraith)

[Greg Goss]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:

>In article <ApidnbkNrKJuI6zS...@earthlink.com>,
>Stumpy <peri...@spamnet.corn> wrote:
>>In 2001: A Space Odyssey there was an extended scene with the astronaut
>>exercising in a spinning torus. In the upcoming Ender's Game movie I expect
>>some low gravity special effects.
>>
>>Are there any good examples from SF movies that have been released?
>>
>>I've read about many zero-gravity habitats, haven't seen very many.
>
>Didn't some film or other shoot some scenes in the Vomit Comet?

Apollo 12.

[Cryptoengineer]

On Feb 8, 12:31 am, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
> On 2012-02-07 20:52:33 -0500, tphile2 said:
>
> > On Feb 7, 6:47 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> >> In article <ApidnbkNrKJuI6zSnZ2dnUVZ_redn...@earthlink.com>,
>
> >> Didn't some film or other shoot some scenes in the Vomit Comet?
>
> > That would be the Ron Howard movie Apollo 13 starring Tom Hanks.
>
> That would also be "The Uranus Experiment, Part 2" -- a porn film.  Not
> as well known as "Apollo 13," and no, I don't know how they managed it,
> but yes, they have a genuine zero-G sex scene.

Haven't seen it, but I have heard about it; they used the Russian
version of the Vomit Comet.

pt

[Michael Stemper]

In article <9pfe29...@mid.individual.net>, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> writes:
>"Stumpy" <peri...@spamnet.corn> wrote:

>>In 2001: A Space Odyssey there was an extended scene with the astronaut
>>exercising in a spinning torus. In the upcoming Ender's Game movie I expect
>>some low gravity special effects.
>
>They were careful about gravity and its simulation in that scene, and
>in the zero-G bits on the way to the Space Station and the helmetless
>transfer. But they had gravity in the pod bay and the computer core
>room. Oops.

Y'know, I never noticed that about the pod bay.

However, my copies of _2001_ (two VHS, one DVD) all show Dave floating
in front of (or above, depending upon camera angle) the memory units
as he's ejecting them.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
This email is to be read by its intended recipient only. Any other party
reading is required by the EULA to send me $500.00.

[Greg Goss]

mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:

>In article <9pfe29...@mid.individual.net>, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> writes:
>>"Stumpy" <peri...@spamnet.corn> wrote:
>
>>>In 2001: A Space Odyssey there was an extended scene with the astronaut
>>>exercising in a spinning torus. In the upcoming Ender's Game movie I expect
>>>some low gravity special effects.
>>
>>They were careful about gravity and its simulation in that scene, and
>>in the zero-G bits on the way to the Space Station and the helmetless
>>transfer. But they had gravity in the pod bay and the computer core
>>room. Oops.
>
>Y'know, I never noticed that about the pod bay.
>
>However, my copies of _2001_ (two VHS, one DVD) all show Dave floating
>in front of (or above, depending upon camera angle) the memory units
>as he's ejecting them.

It's been a very long time since I watched it (I'm not really a fan,
though I appreciate the science realism) but I have a visual image
memory of him in a suit with mismatched helmet stomping TO the room.

[Jerry Brown]

I think they were supposed to have velcro shoes (like the cabin crew
in the earlier "commute to the moon" scenes).

What really gets me about the Discovery is, if you look at the size of
the centrifuge, the fact that it's only accessible from the central
hub which has a solid wall behind it, and the size of the exterior
doors, there seems ot be no way into the area behind the centrifuge.

Also, Bowman is shown running round it opposite to its direction of
rotation, which strikes me as a bit lazy (the faster he goes, the
lighter he gets - a bit faster and he could simply lift his feet and
"fly" round the track).

The Russian ship in 2010 had an outboard centifuge with pods on the
ends of opposing arms, which is probably more logical but not as cool
looking (the EarthForce ships in Babylon 5 followed the same pattern).

--
Jerry Brown

A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)

[Cryptoengineer]

On Feb 8, 10:46 am, Jerry Brown

<je...@jwbrown.co.uk.RemoveThisBitToReply> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:59:25 -0700, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> >mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>
> >>In article <9pfe29Fl8...@mid.individual.net>, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> writes:

> >>>"Stumpy" <perilm...@spamnet.corn> wrote:
>
> >>>>In 2001: A Space Odyssey there was an extended scene with the astronaut
> >>>>exercising in a spinning torus.  In the upcoming Ender's Game movie I expect
> >>>>some low gravity special effects.
>
> >>>They were careful about gravity and its simulation in that scene, and
> >>>in the zero-G bits on the way to the Space Station and the helmetless
> >>>transfer.  But they had gravity in the pod bay and the computer core
> >>>room.  Oops.
>
> >>Y'know, I never noticed that about the pod bay.
>
> >>However, my copies of _2001_ (two VHS, one DVD) all show Dave floating
> >>in front of (or above, depending upon camera angle) the memory units
> >>as he's ejecting them.
>
> >It's been a very long time since I watched it (I'm not really a fan,
> >though I appreciate the science realism) but I have a visual image
> >memory of him in a suit with mismatched helmet stomping TO the room.
>
> I think they were supposed to have velcro shoes (like the cabin crew
> in the earlier "commute to the moon" scenes).

Agreed. The computer bay was zero-g - he was clearly shown floating
inside it (in fact, iirc, he was about 9 feet above the back of the
set, and suspended on wires for filming). He's shown transferring from
the rotating to the non-rotating part as he travels there to turn HAL
off.

> What really gets me about the Discovery is, if you look at the size of
> the centrifuge, the fact that it's only accessible from the central
> hub which has a solid wall behind it, and the size of the exterior
> doors, there seems ot be no way into the area behind the centrifuge.

What gets me is that the main hull just isn't big enough to hold all
the stuff that's meant to be in it; look at the scale, as seen by the
size of the pods. There just isn't enough room there for the
centrifuge, pod bay, command deck (seen only through windows from the
outside), computer bay, airlock, etc. It's like the TARDIS - bigger on
the inside.

> Also, Bowman is shown running round it opposite to its direction of
> rotation, which strikes me as a bit lazy (the faster he goes, the
> lighter he gets - a bit faster and he could simply lift his feet and
> "fly" round the track).

Do we know that? I'm not sure there's any cue as to which direction it
rotates, relative to the run direction.

Even if there was, there was little choice. The centrifuge set was set
up like a hamster wheel, Bowman was always on the bottom as the set
turned around him.

> The Russian ship in 2010 had an outboard centifuge with pods on the
> ends of opposing arms, which is probably more logical but not as cool
> looking (the EarthForce ships in Babylon 5 followed the same pattern).

That's a good further example.

A number of designs for long-duration missions have suggested
splitting the craft into two parts, with a cable in between. That
would get a large enough turning radius to be useful.

pt

[Greg Goss]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:


>>Didn't some film or other shoot some scenes in the Vomit Comet?
>
>Apollo 12.

Someone else gave the answer without the typo. Oops.

[tphile2]

what are you suggesting? That Dorothy knows about this other film?
It's amazing the things you learn.

[tphile2]

On Feb 8, 8:59 am, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
> >In article <9pfe29Fl8...@mid.individual.net>, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> writes:

> >>"Stumpy" <perilm...@spamnet.corn> wrote:
>
> >>>In 2001: A Space Odyssey there was an extended scene with the astronaut
> >>>exercising in a spinning torus.  In the upcoming Ender's Game movie I expect
> >>>some low gravity special effects.
>
> >>They were careful about gravity and its simulation in that scene, and
> >>in the zero-G bits on the way to the Space Station and the helmetless
> >>transfer.  But they had gravity in the pod bay and the computer core
> >>room.  Oops.
>
> >Y'know, I never noticed that about the pod bay.
>
> >However, my copies of _2001_ (two VHS, one DVD) all show Dave floating
> >in front of (or above, depending upon camera angle) the memory units
> >as he's ejecting them.
>
> It's been a very long time since I watched it (I'm not really a fan,
> though I appreciate the science realism) but I have a visual image
> memory of him in a suit with mismatched helmet stomping TO the room.
> --
> "Recessions catch what the auditors miss." (Galbraith)

Yes he had another colored helmet because he grabbed the first one he
could get. They were all the same design and build, color was the
only difference to help the astronauts to distinquish each other.
While I don't think you can say "stomping" in zero g, that was
definitely his attitude. Very angry and determined without saying a
word. nor could anyone blame him.

[tphile2]

that always puzzled me too. The pod doors from the outside of
Discovery looked too big in relation to the rest of the capsule for
the torus, which according to the diagrams was behind the pod and
command areas
http://www.collativelearning.com/2001%20chapter%205.html
and I wonder if the spinning had any gyroscopic effects on the
Discoveries piloting or maneuvering? I expect it was stopped and the
crew in the command section when engines fired.

[lal_truckee]

On 2/7/12 4:16 PM, Stumpy wrote:
> In 2001: A Space Odyssey there was an extended scene with the astronaut
> exercising in a spinning torus.

2001 also has a properly done toroidal space station providing
centrifugal simulated gravity.

[Stumpy]

I just recently saw Pandorum. It had a very large rotating torus design,
but of course during the story it is non-functioning. Therefore all of the
scenes are defective because down would not be "down".

Fun, ambitious movie, but had alot of problems.

[Quadibloc]

I could be mistaken, but I think, from some stills I saw, that the
remake of Planet of the Apes depicted the use of centrifugal force for
gravity.

John Savard

[tphile2]

For gamers there is the aborted Peter Jackson Halo movie which stole
its concept from Ringworld, the ultimate example.
but lets not forget TV movies and series.
Babylon 5 is an example of an O'Neill colony with maybe some Clarke
Rama thrown in.
and IIRC there was a old SF tv movie called Earth II (I think) about
an orbiting space station dealing with an orbiting sattellite bomb
that ended up in one of their space docks, they had to defuse the
metal fuses that would have melted and detonated if the sunlight hit
it. So they had one of their spacecraft go out and brake the rotation
of the station to prevent the "sunrise"

[Greg Goss]

"Stumpy" <peri...@spamnet.corn> wrote:

>In 2001: A Space Odyssey there was an extended scene with the astronaut
>exercising in a spinning torus. In the upcoming Ender's Game movie I expect
>some low gravity special effects.
>
>Are there any good examples from SF movies that have been released?

Do they have to be GOOD examples? I remember a movie where they spun
up Mir so that they could film in gravity. Totally bogus all around.

[tphile2]

Well keep in mind that NASA uses deep water tanks to simulate
weightlessness.
So underwater porn or nudist underwater swimming can provide some
hints to the benefits and problems of zero-G sex. and that is easier
to track down.
However we have seen what zero-g has done to female shuttle astronauts
hair, giving them that Bride of Frankenstein look that can be a cold
shower to such events or maybe not

[Cryptoengineer]

I just checked the sequence on Youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukeHdiszZmE

I was incorrect. Bowman walks from the pod bay, and climbs a ladder to
the computer area. At all times he appears to be under gravity. He
then opens the door to the computer core. Cut to the scene from
inside, and he's now floating.

But - the door we see him opening is a normal rectangular shape, and
the hatch he passes through as he floats into the memory core (seen
from the inside) is circular. We don't know how much travel he did
during the cut. Still, I regard it as an error to not show gravity
lessening, nor of a transition from the spinning to stationary
section.

pt

[Stumpy]

>>
>>In 2001: A Space Odyssey there was an extended scene with the astronaut
>>exercising in a spinning torus. In the upcoming Ender's Game movie I
>>expect
>>some low gravity special effects.
>>
>>Are there any good examples from SF movies that have been released?
>
> Do they have to be GOOD examples? I remember a movie where they spun
> up Mir so that they could film in gravity. Totally bogus all around.
> --
>

Heck. I don't NEED anything. Just thinking.

Was just thinking about the required redundancy of personnel on space
stations/ships. thought about a mile cubed concentric cylinder and what
people might be doing during a meteorite intrusion. 1/3 sleeping - of which
3/4 in sealed rooms, 1/3 working - of which 1/2 behind bulkheads, 1/3
recreating - of which 1/2 in enclosed areas. Quite a few might survive if
there was a supply of gas to replace lost atmosphere.

Realized that I haven't seen any depictions of A. C. Clarke or Larry Niven
type habitats. Pandorum would be an example of one, if it was functioning.

[Wayne Throop]

:: Are there any good examples from SF movies that have been released?

: Do they have to be GOOD examples? I remember a movie where they spun
: up Mir so that they could film in gravity. Totally bogus all around.

Aside from some nits, Babylon 5 did some good stuff with spin gravity.
The Minbari had full-on artificial gravity, but when building Babylon 5,
the humans didn't have that tech, so it spun. And much of what was
shown was very nice; iirc, lower gravity near the axis, that sort
of thing.

The nits one can pick (ie, details of murder victim disposal outside
the station, a spacecraft hovering outside a porthole with the exhaust
pointing the wrong way, etc) can be picked only because they did the
rest of it so well.

Of course... the net effect was that most scenes were filmable
in ordinary 1g gravity. Essentially all scenes... just a few not.

But I mean... how many folks even *try* to get details right?
Babylon 5 had fairly good freefall combat in fighter spacecraft,
and iirc even had one occasion where they did a skew-flip turnover
under heavy acceleration in combat. How many folks would even try?


I'll note that Questionable Content is now in a story arc set on
a torroidal spinning space station. Owned by Hannelore's father.
Where she grew up. She's, uh... somewhat rich, if she wants to be.
Which mostly she doesn't.

[Steve Coltrin]

begin fnord

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:

> Didn't some film or other shoot some scenes in the Vomit Comet?

_The Uranus Experiment 2_, but that was a Russian vomit comet, which
I hope the Russkies hosed down with Lysol afterwards.

--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org Google Groups killfiled here
"A group known as the League of Human Dignity helped arrange for Deuel
to be driven to a local livestock scale, where he could be weighed."
- Associated Press

[Steve Coltrin]

begin fnord

Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> writes:

> That would also be "The Uranus Experiment, Part 2" -- a porn film.
> Not as well known as "Apollo 13," and no, I don't know how they
> managed it, but yes, they have a genuine zero-G sex scene.

Hard currency and a cash-strapped ex-superpower were involved.

[Steve Coltrin]

begin fnord

Jerry Brown <je...@jwbrown.co.uk.RemoveThisBitToReply> writes:

> The Russian ship in 2010 had an outboard centifuge with pods on the
> ends of opposing arms, which is probably more logical but not as cool
> looking (the EarthForce ships in Babylon 5 followed the same pattern).

ISV Venture Star from _Avatar_ did likewise. Mind you, the only scenes
set on board are in a free fall space.

[tphile2]

There is the Babylon 5 scene where Captain Sheridan? is in that arial
monorail tram car running thru the center axis of B5. and he leaps
clear into the "sky" when the bomb aboard the car explodes.
Then there is the logistic problems of weapon systems being effective
on a large rotating structure like that. You need really good
coordination to keep laser batteries and rockets aimed on target with
an attacking force

[Wayne Throop]

: tphile2 <tph...@cableone.net>
: There is the Babylon 5 scene where Captain Sheridan? is in that arial

: monorail tram car running thru the center axis of B5.

IIRC, only *near* the center axis. Plus, even if the sfx weren't
all that good, there were "low g area" warning signs about iirc.

Not that there weren't problems with that scene, including his dwell
time in falling to the habitat wall. But... not bad enough to be
really objectionable, imo.

: Then there is the logistic problems of weapon systems being effective

: on a large rotating structure like that. You need really good
: coordination to keep laser batteries and rockets aimed on target with
: an attacking force

Shrug. Computers. We could do it with rockets today if we wanted to.
The brains in 'em can be plenty smart enough.
Also... there were several parts of the station that didn't rotate.
The solar panels, a cargo transhipment area, and a few more.
And finally, most of its defenses were tied up in the fighters.
So there too, not objectionable imo.

[Cryptoengineer]

On Feb 8, 3:28 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : tphile2 <tphi...@cableone.net>

We do it already; look at the aiming systems for the large guns on
ships, and more relevantly, how the course corrections are being done
on MSL (on its way to Mars as I type): the whole craft is spinning,
but they pulse the thrusters at just the right moment.

pt

[tphile2]

On Feb 8, 2:28 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : tphile2 <tphi...@cableone.net>

I wasn't making objections, more like just pointing an interesting bit
out. His slow freefall as an example of that stations design.
However I am dissappointed that we didn't see strap on flying wings
like RAH The Menace From Earth or buck rogers rocket belts or similar
methods of travelling there. That would have been fun to watch.
They also had baseball batting cages there so a game there would be
interesting. Would a home run fly out of the park keep going to the
other side of the station?

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

Ah, that's right! Thanks.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On 2012-02-08 05:41:03 -0500, Paul Ciszek said:

> In article <jgt1cc$dee$1...@dont-email.me>,

> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>> On 2012-02-07 20:52:33 -0500, tphile2 said:
>>
>>> On Feb 7, 6:47 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>>> In article <ApidnbkNrKJuI6zSnZ2dnUVZ_redn...@earthlink.com>,
>>>>
>>>> Didn't some film or other shoot some scenes in the Vomit Comet?
>>>
>>> That would be the Ron Howard movie Apollo 13 starring Tom Hanks.
>>
>> That would also be "The Uranus Experiment, Part 2" -- a porn film. Not
>> as well known as "Apollo 13," and no, I don't know how they managed it,
>> but yes, they have a genuine zero-G sex scene.
>

> It couldn't have lasted very long.

It didn't. And they looked more scared than turned on.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 2/7/2012 7:05 PM, tphile2 wrote:

> On Feb 7, 6:24 pm, Juho Julkunen<giaot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In article<ApidnbkNrKJuI6zSnZ2dnUVZ_redn...@earthlink.com>,

>> perilm...@spamnet.corn says...

>>
>>
>>
>>> In 2001: A Space Odyssey there was an extended scene with the astronaut
>>> exercising in a spinning torus. In the upcoming Ender's Game movie I expect
>>> some low gravity special effects.
>>

>>> Are there any good examples from SF movies that have been released?
>>

>> Moonraker.
>>
>> --
>> Juho Julkunen
>> For very loose definitions of 'good'
>
> Moonraker is one of the worse examples as well as one of the worse
> Bond movies. The satellite had a kind of basic wagon wheel design but
> there was too long straight sections and iirc the "floor" was
> perpendicular to the axis at a right angle up. So people were standing
> parallel to the rotating axis, A merry go round design doesn't work
> well in free gravity.
>
> Good example
> The russian ship in 2010.
> Apollo 13 was very realistic with zero gravity.
> For its time, some of the japanese SF movies handled it very well.
> The Green Slime. Battle In Outer Space

Apollo 13 was shot in zero gravity in the
Vomit Comet.

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

On 2/8/2012 12:19 PM, Greg Goss wrote:
> "Stumpy"<peri...@spamnet.corn> wrote:
>
>> In 2001: A Space Odyssey there was an extended scene with the astronaut
>> exercising in a spinning torus. In the upcoming Ender's Game movie I expect
>> some low gravity special effects.
>>
>> Are there any good examples from SF movies that have been released?
>
> Do they have to be GOOD examples? I remember a movie where they spun
> up Mir so that they could film in gravity. Totally bogus all around.

"Armageddon".

Lynn

[Howard Brazee]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:16:11 -0500, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
wrote:

>>>> That would be the Ron Howard movie Apollo 13 starring Tom Hanks.
>>>
>>> That would also be "The Uranus Experiment, Part 2" -- a porn film. Not
>>> as well known as "Apollo 13," and no, I don't know how they managed it,
>>> but yes, they have a genuine zero-G sex scene.
>>
>> It couldn't have lasted very long.
>
>It didn't. And they looked more scared than turned on.

I've taken that ride. We had maybe a dozen parabolas with a half
minute of free fall each time. And a lot of vomiting on the trip
home.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[Wayne Throop]

Re: Babylon 5

: tphile2 <tph...@cableone.net>
: However I am dissappointed that we didn't see strap on flying wings

: like RAH The Menace From Earth

True, that would have been awesome.
Bit of a dangerous sport, though, if done in the open; seems like you
could *really* easily get too far from the axis. On the other hand,
just make the wings large enough to minimally glide with to get down
to non-fatal velocity, and Bob's your uncle, and falling out of
the flight zone is just an embarrassing gaffe for newbie flyers.
Or take the fun out of it, and install netting.

: They also had baseball batting cages there so a game there would be

: interesting. Would a home run fly out of the park keep going to the
: other side of the station?

I recall the station radius was like a kilometer, or 500 meters, or
something. Now, the acceleration falls off, so it's not quite like it
would be on earth; the potential "hill" isn't as high as that distance
would be on earth, but seems unlikely something would hit the far rim.
If nothing else, corriolis forces would make it hit somewhere else,
most likely.

Though that right there would have been nifty; watch coriolois forces
curve the ball. Even niftier if they just *show* it, and nobody comments
on it. Heh.

Of course, some folks objected that they didn't depict the coriolis
forces acting on the fighters during drop properly. Eh. It was
close enough. True, not perfect, but wadayagonado? Throw out
the babylon with the bathwater?


( Yes, I know, coriolis isn't a "force", technically.
But the terminology is traditional, and not totally unfounded,
ie, one could argue that *any* inertial force is not a force,
including gravity. )

[Howard Brazee]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:56:10 -0800 (PST), tphile2
<tph...@cableone.net> wrote:

>that always puzzled me too. The pod doors from the outside of
>Discovery looked too big in relation to the rest of the capsule for
>the torus, which according to the diagrams was behind the pod and
>command areas

Very much so. Not unusual for Hollywood to get perspective wrong.
At least the camera wasn't changed to allow the good guy some more
space between him and the bad guy chasing him.

[Stumpy]

>
> I recall the station radius was like a kilometer, or 500 meters, or
> something. Now, the acceleration falls off, so it's not quite like it
> would be on earth; the potential "hill" isn't as high as that distance
> would be on earth, but seems unlikely something would hit the far rim.
> If nothing else, corriolis forces would make it hit somewhere else,
> most likely.
>
> Though that right there would have been nifty; watch coriolois forces
> curve the ball. Even niftier if they just *show* it, and nobody comments
> on it. Heh.
>
> Of course, some folks objected that they didn't depict the coriolis
> forces acting on the fighters during drop properly. Eh. It was
> close enough. True, not perfect, but wadayagonado? Throw out
> the babylon with the bathwater?
>
>
> ( Yes, I know, coriolis isn't a "force", technically.
> But the terminology is traditional, and not totally unfounded,
> ie, one could argue that *any* inertial force is not a force,
> including gravity. )

http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/teacher/materials/ringworld/ringworld.html

[Robert Carnegie]

On Feb 8, 10:27 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
>
> : They also had baseball batting cages there so a game there would be
> : interesting.  Would a home run fly out of the park keep going to the
> : other side of the station?
>
> I recall the station radius was like a kilometer, or 500 meters, or
> something.  Now, the acceleration falls off, so it's not quite like it
> would be on earth; the potential "hill" isn't as high as that distance
> would be on earth, but seems unlikely something would hit the far rim.
> If nothing else, corriolis forces would make it hit somewhere else,
> most likely.

Are we still on - in - Babylon 5? To first approximation, there's /
nothing/ accelerating you in its interior - right? - unless you're
standing on the "ground", which is moving. Or in Sheridan's case,
because he jumped out of a railway car, then it was blown up with a
bomb, giving him an extra push.

What stops you from just hovering anywhere in the volume, I guess, is
the air being dragged around - but even then, I'm not sure you'll
"fall"? I mean, is the air falling... But if you drift close to the
ground, it is probably moving very fast - some maths help, please?

Gar baldi has that Minbari motorbike at some stage...

[Wayne Throop]

: Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com>
: Are we still on - in - Babylon 5? To first approximation, there's /

: nothing/ accelerating you in its interior - right? - unless you're
: standing on the "ground", which is moving.

It's the perenniel "is centrifugal force a force" issue.

If your coordinates are accelerating, then objects in inertial motion
are accelerating wrt those coordinates. Whether you want to call those
objects "accelerating wrt the station rim", or "moving in a straight
line wrt a hypothetical object floating outside the station" is purely
a matter of terminology, and the former is fairly widely used.
Actually, both are, depending on which is easier to use for the
problem at hand, or visualize as an intuition pump, or whatnot.

If you're standing on the rim, and drop a rock, it's easier to
visualize as "the rock accelerates towards the rim", and for
most immediate problems, it's the easier model quantitatively also.
When you'r3e talking an object crossing a large section of the
circumference of the station, things may be different, but for
many purposes, thinking of "centrifugal force" is still simpler.

In the case of a baseball, the rim is moving at a couple hundred
kilometers an hour iirc, so to get it to move "straight across" to
the opposite rim, you have to throw it a bit faster than that.
Which is a tad difficult. Or looked at it the other way, the
centrifugal and coriolis forces are equivalent to a drop through
gravity several seconds long.

Both legitimate ways to describe the same physical situation, namely,
that it'd be difficult to hit the far rim.

[Stumpy]

>
> If your coordinates are accelerating, then objects in inertial motion
> are accelerating wrt those coordinates. Whether you want to call those
> objects "accelerating wrt the station rim", or "moving in a straight
> line wrt a hypothetical object floating outside the station" is purely
> a matter of terminology, and the former is fairly widely used.
> Actually, both are, depending on which is easier to use for the
> problem at hand, or visualize as an intuition pump, or whatnot.
>
> If you're standing on the rim, and drop a rock, it's easier to
> visualize as "the rock accelerates towards the rim", and for
> most immediate problems, it's the easier model quantitatively also.
> When you'r3e talking an object crossing a large section of the
> circumference of the station, things may be different, but for
> many purposes, thinking of "centrifugal force" is still simpler.
>
> In the case of a baseball, the rim is moving at a couple hundred
> kilometers an hour iirc, so to get it to move "straight across" to
> the opposite rim, you have to throw it a bit faster than that.
> Which is a tad difficult. Or looked at it the other way, the
> centrifugal and coriolis forces are equivalent to a drop through
> gravity several seconds long.
>
> Both legitimate ways to describe the same physical situation, namely,
> that it'd be difficult to hit the far rim.

http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/teacher/materials/ringworld/ringworld.html

Centrifugal and coriolis forces.

[jack...@bright.net]

Greg Goss wrote:

>"Stumpy" <peri...@spamnet.corn> wrote:
>
>>In 2001: A Space Odyssey there was an extended scene with the astronaut
>>exercising in a spinning torus. In the upcoming Ender's Game movie I expect
>>some low gravity special effects.
>

>They were careful about gravity and its simulation in that scene, and
>in the zero-G bits on the way to the Space Station and the helmetless
>transfer. But they had gravity in the pod bay and the computer core
>room. Oops.

You remind me that in 2010 they also had gravity in the pod bay. Of
course then the Discovery was flipping end-for-end, so the astronauts
were walking on the front wall.

--
-Jack

[Mark Zenier]

In article <ApidnbkNrKJuI6zS...@earthlink.com>,

Stumpy <peri...@spamnet.corn> wrote:
>In 2001: A Space Odyssey there was an extended scene with the astronaut
>exercising in a spinning torus. In the upcoming Ender's Game movie I expect
>some low gravity special effects.
>

>Are there any good examples from SF movies that have been released?
>

>I've read about many zero-gravity habitats, haven't seen very many.

I though the British TV Show "Star Cop" (or something like that)
did pretty well.

For schlock, there was a scene where they turned off the artifical
gravity in the movie "Moon Zero Two".


Mark Zenier mze...@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

[James Nicoll]

In article <jh12a...@enews6.newsguy.com>,

Mark Zenier <mze...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>In article <ApidnbkNrKJuI6zS...@earthlink.com>,
>Stumpy <peri...@spamnet.corn> wrote:
>>In 2001: A Space Odyssey there was an extended scene with the astronaut
>>exercising in a spinning torus. In the upcoming Ender's Game movie I expect
>>some low gravity special effects.
>>
>>Are there any good examples from SF movies that have been released?
>>
>>I've read about many zero-gravity habitats, haven't seen very many.
>
>
>I though the British TV Show "Star Cop" (or something like that)
>did pretty well.
>
>For schlock, there was a scene where they turned off the artifical
>gravity in the movie "Moon Zero Two".
>

There's a sad bit in the ambitious but flawed PLYMOUTH (a 1991 TV movie
about a moon colony) that provoked this reaction from me when I
reviewed it last year:

4:45ish: "PUT YOUR BOOTS ON RIGHT AWAY"? They're actually wearing
HEAVY BOOTS to keep from floating away on the Moon. I hope their
science advisor had the grace to weep bitter tears at that point.

--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)

[Walter Bushell]

In article <jh134v$o6q$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:

> 4:45ish: "PUT YOUR BOOTS ON RIGHT AWAY"? They're actually wearing
> HEAVY BOOTS to keep from floating away on the Moon. I hope their
> science advisor had the grace to weep bitter tears at that point.

That is "not even wrong".

--
It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. -- H. L. Mencken

[Kip Williams]

Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article<jh134v$o6q$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>
>> 4:45ish: "PUT YOUR BOOTS ON RIGHT AWAY"? They're actually wearing
>> HEAVY BOOTS to keep from floating away on the Moon. I hope their
>> science advisor had the grace to weep bitter tears at that point.
>
> That is "not even wrong".

Oh, sure it is.


Kip W
rasfw

[Greg Goss]

thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:

>I'll note that Questionable Content is now in a story arc set on
>a torroidal spinning space station. Owned by Hannelore's father.
>Where she grew up. She's, uh... somewhat rich, if she wants to be.
>Which mostly she doesn't.

0.76% of a non-founder's shares are worth $4.6M. So the computer,
basically an employee of the station, is worth $605M. So how much can
we expect the founder's beloved daughter to be worth?
--
"Recessions catch what the auditors miss." (Galbraith)

[Greg Goss]

thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:

>Re: Babylon 5
>
>: tphile2 <tph...@cableone.net>
>: However I am dissappointed that we didn't see strap on flying wings
>: like RAH The Menace From Earth
>
>True, that would have been awesome.
>Bit of a dangerous sport, though, if done in the open; seems like you
>could *really* easily get too far from the axis. On the other hand,
>just make the wings large enough to minimally glide with to get down
>to non-fatal velocity, and Bob's your uncle, and falling out of
>the flight zone is just an embarrassing gaffe for newbie flyers.
>Or take the fun out of it, and install netting.

I've read a book set in an ONeil style cylinder where they played with
wings at the axis. Don't remember any of the plotline, though. As a
yasid there should be dozens if hits.

[Greg Goss]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

>What stops you from just hovering anywhere in the volume, I guess, is
>the air being dragged around - but even then, I'm not sure you'll
>"fall"? I mean, is the air falling... But if you drift close to the
>ground, it is probably moving very fast - some maths help, please?

I was never able to get into B5 as a show, but balancing at the core
of an ONeil cylinder is unstable. The slightest bit off-center
magnifies, rather than corrects, and at low speeds the air is
essentially frictionless to hold you in place.

The air is likely rotating with the station, but this would (A) not
contribute to either stabilizing, or (B) destabilizing the
participant, so we can pretty much ignore its motion.

[Greg Goss]

jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:

>I hope their
>science advisor had the grace to weep bitter tears at that point.

Ben Bova has written about how he waited until too late to try to get
his name stripped from The Starlost.

[Wayne Throop]

: Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org>
: 0.76% of a non-founder's shares are worth $4.6M.

Heh. Jacques does a fairly good depiction of "gob-smacked".

: So the computer, basically an employee of the station, is worth $605M.

: So how much can we expect the founder's beloved daughter to be worth?

Several sagans. However, oddly enough, note that when Hannelore
wanted to buy a business that had slighted Martin in order to fire
the people who'd offended him, she asked her mother to do it rather
than just doing it herself. So she may not have direct access to
significant wealth. It may be in trust, or somesuch. On the other
hand, maybe she just thought her mother'd have more fun firing
somebody than she would...

But note wrt "employee of the station", that terminology varies. That is,
Hannelore says that he *is* the station, and indeed, named him "Station".
Similarly with "Spaceship". When they disembarked, Spaceship said
something like "you may now exit the... um... me".

But Spaceship and Station may just have been humoring Hannelore.
Both Martin and her father refer to "the AI" instead of "the station",
or "Station". So like I say, terminology varies.

Musing ahead... I wonder if Martin and Marigold will see her in the same
light when they get back. Hannelore definitely seems to have all the
AIs wrapped around her finger, for one thing, and some of her authority
does sort of shine through. I mean... Station *really* didn't want to
piss her off. And she gets the use of a tens-of-passengers space shuttle
for just three people. Sure, they knew intellectually that she was an
Ellicott-Chatham heiress (or rather, *the* Ellicott-Chatham heiress),
but knowing it intellectually and seeing it in practice are different
things, I expect.

"And give Marigold a holo-pony!"
"Yes ma'am!"
"oh my god"

[James Nicoll]

In article <proto-655352....@news.panix.com>,

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <jh134v$o6q$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>
>> 4:45ish: "PUT YOUR BOOTS ON RIGHT AWAY"? They're actually wearing
>> HEAVY BOOTS to keep from floating away on the Moon. I hope their
>> science advisor had the grace to weep bitter tears at that point.
>
>That is "not even wrong".
>

Later on I realized the heavy clay bases on the cups and glasses
were the containers' version of heavy boots.

The show was an odd combination of neat stuff - lunar landers without
stream lining, the fact that they had no idea if women could bring
babies to term on the Moon - and utter daft stuff, like the heavy
boots and the fact that many of the sets looked like they were cribbed
from the Flintstones, including a ladder made from rough-hewn branches...

[Stumpy]

>
> I've read a book set in an ONeil style cylinder where they played with
> wings at the axis. Don't remember any of the plotline, though. As a
> yasid there should be dozens if hits.
>
> --
> "Recessions catch what the auditors miss." (Galbraith)

YASID: Winged activity in O'Neill cylinder.

I remember this book too.

[David DeLaney]

Stumpy <peri...@spamnet.con> wrote:
>> I've read a book set in an ONeil style cylinder where they played with
>> wings at the axis. Don't remember any of the plotline, though. As a
>> yasid there should be dozens if hits.
>

>YASID: Winged activity in O'Neill cylinder.
>
>I remember this book too.

...Venus Equilateral maybe?

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Wayne Throop]

:: YASID: Winged activity in O'Neill cylinder.

Well, there's the one with the chickens.
With the "cloud-cuckoo-land" quote.
A niven or a pournelle?
Having to do with diamonds?

Hrm.

[Konrad Gaertner]

> Stumpy <peri...@spamnet.con> wrote:
> >> I've read a book set in an ONeil style cylinder where they played with
> >> wings at the axis. Don't remember any of the plotline, though. As a
> >> yasid there should be dozens if hits.
> >
> >YASID: Winged activity in O'Neill cylinder.
> >
> >I remember this book too.

There was an Asimov short about hiring a fashion designer to create
better wings, and he found that fins worked better in space.

[checking ISFDB and my collection]

"For the Birds"


--
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - - email: kgae...@tx.rr.com
http://kgbooklog.livejournal.com/
"I don't mind hidden depths but I insist that there be a surface."
-- James Nicoll

[Don Bruder]

In article <b8WdnSOJYYmwoqnS...@earthlink.com>,

As of this instant, I can come up with 3 where flying at the axis of
O'Neills (or similar spin-grav environments, whether using wings,
human-powered vehicles, or similar) played a part.

The ones I'm thinking of:
Varley's Titan/Wizard/Demon set (Shows up mostly in Wizard, mentioned in
passing in Demon - Not actually part of the "action" in either, but
spoken of by characters who had participated "back home", for values of
"back home" that included at least one "explicitly O'Neill" structure)

Rendezvous With Rama - the "dragonfly" craft that were both discussed by
characters (As in "And back home, I was champion..." style chatter) and
actually used within Rama.

Neuromancer - Flyers used near the axis in La Villa Straylight.

I'm sure there are MANY more - it's one of those "Can't swing a dead cat
without hitting at least one" concepts that have "infested" SF for years
upon years.

--
Email shown is deceased. If you would like to contact me by email, please
post something that makes it obvious in this or another group you see me
posting in with a "how to contact you" address, and I'll get back to you.

[Chris]

On Feb 8, 12:31 am, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
> On 2012-02-07 20:52:33 -0500, tphile2 said:

>
> > On Feb 7, 6:47 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> >> In article <ApidnbkNrKJuI6zSnZ2dnUVZ_redn...@earthlink.com>,
>

> >> Didn't some film or other shoot some scenes in the Vomit Comet?

>
> > That would be the Ron Howard movie Apollo 13 starring Tom Hanks.
>
> That would also be "The Uranus Experiment, Part 2" -- a porn film.  Not
> as well known as "Apollo 13," and no, I don't know how they managed it,
> but yes, they have a genuine zero-G sex scene.

What's a porn flick without a g-string or g-spot?

Chris

>
> --
> Now available on Amazon or B&N:  One-Eyed Jack.
> Greg Kraft could see ghosts.  That didn't mean he could stop them...

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<18634f87-0a5c-4812...@x19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

Chris <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 8, 12:31 am, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
> > On 2012-02-07 20:52:33 -0500, tphile2 said:
> >
> > > On Feb 7, 6:47 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> > >> In article <ApidnbkNrKJuI6zSnZ2dnUVZ_redn...@earthlink.com>,
> >
> > >> Didn't some film or other shoot some scenes in the Vomit Comet?
> >
> > > That would be the Ron Howard movie Apollo 13 starring Tom Hanks.
> >
> > That would also be "The Uranus Experiment, Part 2" -- a porn film.  Not
> > as well known as "Apollo 13," and no, I don't know how they managed it,
> > but yes, they have a genuine zero-G sex scene.
>
> What's a porn flick without a g-string or g-spot?
>
> Chris
>

It's all explained by string theory.

[tphile2]

A Black Hole

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 2/9/2012 6:49 PM, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article
> <18634f87-0a5c-4812...@x19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> Chris<chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 8, 12:31 am, Lawrence Watt-Evans<l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>> On 2012-02-07 20:52:33 -0500, tphile2 said:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 7, 6:47 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>>>> In article<ApidnbkNrKJuI6zSnZ2dnUVZ_redn...@earthlink.com>,
>>>
>>>>> Didn't some film or other shoot some scenes in the Vomit Comet?
>>>
>>>> That would be the Ron Howard movie Apollo 13 starring Tom Hanks.
>>>
>>> That would also be "The Uranus Experiment, Part 2" -- a porn film. Not
>>> as well known as "Apollo 13," and no, I don't know how they managed it,
>>> but yes, they have a genuine zero-G sex scene.
>>
>> What's a porn flick without a g-string or g-spot?
>>
>

> It's all explained by string theory.
>

Don't you mean G-string theory?

[Greg Goss]

The Niven one with the diamonds was "Spirals". What felt like a part
1 of many was in one of those paperback magazine equivalents, perhaps
Destinies.

The protagonist converted the money he made from selling the rebar
from a construction site (there were other off-spec things going on
that would have led to the building collapsing, but even corrupt
inspectors couldn't ignore this one) into diamonds for storage and
easy travel. The next day, the headline story in the NYT was the
perfection of a means of making flawless diamonds in any size.

[Greg Goss]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
>
>>:: YASID: Winged activity in O'Neill cylinder.
>>
>>Well, there's the one with the chickens.
>>With the "cloud-cuckoo-land" quote.
>>A niven or a pournelle?
>>Having to do with diamonds?
>
>The Niven one with the diamonds was "Spirals". What felt like a part
>1 of many was in one of those paperback magazine equivalents, perhaps
>Destinies.

Collected into "Limits".

Pournelle was in there with him.
http://www.amazon.com/Limits-Larry-Niven/dp/0345321421

[Kay Shapero]

In article <jh1v67$es$2...@dont-email.me>, dak...@sonic.net says...

>
> In article <b8WdnSOJYYmwoqnS...@earthlink.com>,
> "Stumpy" <peri...@spamnet.con> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I've read a book set in an ONeil style cylinder where they played with
> > > wings at the axis. Don't remember any of the plotline, though. As a
> > > yasid there should be dozens if hits.
> > >
> > > --
> > > "Recessions catch what the auditors miss." (Galbraith)
> >
> > YASID: Winged activity in O'Neill cylinder.
> >
>

> Neuromancer - Flyers used near the axis in La Villa Straylight.
>
> I'm sure there are MANY more - it's one of those "Can't swing a dead cat
> without hitting at least one" concepts that have "infested" SF for years
> upon years.

Undoubtedly. Slightly different environment, but low G flight with
wings figures heavily in Heinlein's "The Menace From Earth". Was
planning on steal- er- borrowing it for a serial I was doing for a
fiction zine, but one of my characters got the bit between his teeth and
sprang what I'd intended to end the story on before we got that far. Oh
well...

--
Kay Shapero
http://www.kayshapero.net
Address munged, to email use kay at the above domain (everything after
the www.)

[Brian M. Scott]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 18:45:19 -0800 (PST), Chris
<chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:18634f87-0a5c-4812...@x19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On Feb 8, 12:31 am, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:

[...]

>> That would also be "The Uranus Experiment, Part 2" -- a
>> porn film.  Not as well known as "Apollo 13," and no, I
>> don't know how they managed it, but yes, they have a
>> genuine zero-G sex scene.

> What's a porn flick without a g-string or g-spot?

If it has a g-string, the background music had better be the
Air from BWV 1068.

Brian

[Robert Carnegie]

On Feb 8, 4:44 pm, tphile2 <tphi...@cableone.net> wrote:

> On Feb 7, 11:31 pm, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
> >
> > On 2012-02-07 20:52:33 -0500, tphile2 said:
>
> > > On Feb 7, 6:47 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> > >> In article <ApidnbkNrKJuI6zSnZ2dnUVZ_redn...@earthlink.com>,
>
> > >> Didn't some film or other shoot some scenes in the Vomit Comet?
>
> > > That would be the Ron Howard movie Apollo 13 starring Tom Hanks.
>

> > That would also be "The Uranus Experiment, Part 2" -- a porn film.  Not
> > as well known as "Apollo 13," and no, I don't know how they managed it,
> > but yes, they have a genuine zero-G sex scene.
>

> what are you suggesting?  That Dorothy knows about this other film?
> It's amazing the things you learn.

She might know /that/, and not, say, the director's name.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Feb 10, 2:25 am, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article <b8WdnSOJYYmwoqnSnZ2dnUVZ_hedn...@earthlink.com>,

>
>  "Stumpy" <perilm...@spamnet.con> wrote:
>
> > > I've read a book set in an ONeil style cylinder where they played with
> > > wings at the axis.  Don't remember any of the plotline, though.  As a
> > > yasid there should be dozens if hits.
>
> > > --
> > > "Recessions catch what the auditors miss." (Galbraith)
>
> > YASID:  Winged activity in O'Neill cylinder.
>
> > I remember this book too.
>
> As of this instant, I can come up with 3 where flying at the axis of
> O'Neills (or similar spin-grav environments, whether using wings,
> human-powered vehicles, or similar) played a part.
>
> The ones I'm thinking of:
> Varley's Titan/Wizard/Demon set (Shows up mostly in Wizard, mentioned in
> passing in Demon - Not actually part of the "action" in either, but
> spoken of by characters who had participated "back home", for values of
> "back home" that included at least one "explicitly O'Neill" structure)
>
> Rendezvous With Rama - the "dragonfly" craft that were both discussed by
> characters (As in "And back home, I was champion..." style chatter) and
> actually used within Rama.
>
> Neuromancer - Flyers used near the axis in La Villa Straylight.
>
> I'm sure there are MANY more - it's one of those "Can't swing a dead cat
> without hitting at least one" concepts that have "infested" SF for years
> upon years.

I don't remember if it happens in _Islands in the Sky_. I Google that
they have "broomsticks", but these are more like pogo-sticks, to
spring you off one wall to where you want to go, and to land safely.
(Preferably without holing or unduly denting.) And I think there was
a big water-bubble zero-g "swimming pool", but wouldn't people tend
to, um, die? The pogo-sticks show up in _2010_ too, I think someone
said.

I'm confident of a flying scene in _3001_, but I think that's set
inside a space-beanstalk or something.

[Michael Stemper]

In article <jh134v$o6q$1...@reader1.panix.com>, jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>In article <jh12a...@enews6.newsguy.com>, Mark Zenier <mze...@eskimo.com> wrote:

>>For schlock, there was a scene where they turned off the artifical
>>gravity in the movie "Moon Zero Two".
>>
>There's a sad bit in the ambitious but flawed PLYMOUTH (a 1991 TV movie
>about a moon colony) that provoked this reaction from me when I
>reviewed it last year:
>
>4:45ish: "PUT YOUR BOOTS ON RIGHT AWAY"? They're actually wearing
>HEAVY BOOTS to keep from floating away on the Moon. I hope their
>science advisor had the grace to weep bitter tears at that point.

I assume that you're familiar with this:
<http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~det/phy2060/heavyboots.html>,
but others might not be.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
This email is to be read by its intended recipient only. Any other party
reading is required by the EULA to send me $500.00.

[Greg Goss]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>I've read a book set in an ONeil style cylinder where they played with
>wings at the axis. Don't remember any of the plotline, though. As a
>yasid there should be dozens if hits.

Someone started a YASID thread where this was probably
Niven/pournelle's "Spirals"

[Anthony Nance]

Michael Stemper <mste...@walkabout.empros.com> wrote:
> In article <jh134v$o6q$1...@reader1.panix.com>, jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>>In article <jh12a...@enews6.newsguy.com>, Mark Zenier <mze...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>>>For schlock, there was a scene where they turned off the artifical
>>>gravity in the movie "Moon Zero Two".
>>>
>>There's a sad bit in the ambitious but flawed PLYMOUTH (a 1991 TV movie
>>about a moon colony) that provoked this reaction from me when I
>>reviewed it last year:
>>
>>4:45ish: "PUT YOUR BOOTS ON RIGHT AWAY"? They're actually wearing
>>HEAVY BOOTS to keep from floating away on the Moon. I hope their
>>science advisor had the grace to weep bitter tears at that point.
>
> I assume that you're familiar with this:
> <http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~det/phy2060/heavyboots.html>,
> but others might not be.

Aye - exactly what came to mind when James mentioned "heavy boots".
A friend of mine (Aero/Astro Engineer) emailed it to me in...1995.

Tony

[Stumpy]

>
>>:: YASID: Winged activity in O'Neill cylinder.
>>
>>Well, there's the one with the chickens.
>>With the "cloud-cuckoo-land" quote.
>>A niven or a pournelle?
>>Having to do with diamonds?
>
> The Niven one with the diamonds was "Spirals". What felt like a part
> 1 of many was in one of those paperback magazine equivalents, perhaps
> Destinies.
>
> The protagonist converted the money he made from selling the rebar
> from a construction site (there were other off-spec things going on
> that would have led to the building collapsing, but even corrupt
> inspectors couldn't ignore this one) into diamonds for storage and
> easy travel. The next day, the headline story in the NYT was the
> perfection of a means of making flawless diamonds in any size.
>
>

Went looking for "Limits" last night - I know I have it. Didn't show up,
but the title "Spirals" evokes some hang gliding activity in a large tube
remembered from the 1980's.

[Stumpy]

>>
>>>>For schlock, there was a scene where they turned off the artifical
>>>>gravity in the movie "Moon Zero Two".
>>>>
>>>There's a sad bit in the ambitious but flawed PLYMOUTH (a 1991 TV movie
>>>about a moon colony) that provoked this reaction from me when I
>>>reviewed it last year:
>>>
>>>4:45ish: "PUT YOUR BOOTS ON RIGHT AWAY"? They're actually wearing
>>>HEAVY BOOTS to keep from floating away on the Moon. I hope their
>>>science advisor had the grace to weep bitter tears at that point.
>>
>> I assume that you're familiar with this:
>> <http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~det/phy2060/heavyboots.html>,
>> but others might not be.
>
>

> What came to mind when James mentioned "heavy boots".
>
(snipped)

Iron Man

Black Sabbath, 1970

Can he walk at all
Or if he moves will he fall?

Heavy boots of lead
Fills his victims full of dread

[Anthony Nance]

Running as fast as he can
Iron Man lives agaaaaaaaaaain

[William George Ferguson]

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:59:20 -0500, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney)
wrote:

>Stumpy <peri...@spamnet.con> wrote:
>>> I've read a book set in an ONeil style cylinder where they played with
>>> wings at the axis. Don't remember any of the plotline, though. As a
>>> yasid there should be dozens if hits.
>>
>>YASID: Winged activity in O'Neill cylinder.
>>
>>I remember this book too.
>
>...Venus Equilateral maybe?
>
>Dave

In Dana Stabenow's first Star Svensdotter book, Second Star, Star (the
project manager) is completing construction on an O'Neill habitat at L5.

Fun fact, in the second book it is established that Star is the
great-granddaughter of Kate Shugak (maybe greaat-great).

--
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
(Bene Gesserit)

[Wayne Throop]

::: What came to mind when James mentioned "heavy boots".

:: Heavy boots of lead

:: Fills his victims full of dread

: Running as fast as he can
: Iron Man lives agaaaaaaaaaain

xref: He was turned to steel
In the great magnetic field
When he traveled time
For the future of mankind
vs
When Brian Boitano traveled time
To the year three thousand ten
He fought the evil robot king
And saved us all again

[Wayne Throop]

: William George Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com>
: In Dana Stabenow's first Star Svensdotter book, Second Star, Star (the

: project manager) is completing construction on an O'Neill habitat at
: L5. Fun fact, in the second book it is established that Star is the
: great-granddaughter of Kate Shugak (maybe greaat-great).

Huh. The price on amazon seems to be reasonable just now: $0.00
But are the Kate Shugak stories (and others) worthwhile?

[David DeLaney]

It's all about the branes. Slippery, sliding against each other, creating
friction...

Dave "and a lot of interesting by-products" DeLaney

[Kay Shapero]

In article <jh364c$g14$3...@dont-email.me>, mste...@walkabout.empros.com
says...

>

> >
> >4:45ish: "PUT YOUR BOOTS ON RIGHT AWAY"? They're actually wearing
> >HEAVY BOOTS to keep from floating away on the Moon. I hope their
> >science advisor had the grace to weep bitter tears at that point.
>
> I assume that you're familiar with this:
> <http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~det/phy2060/heavyboots.html>,
> but others might not be.

I wasn't. Thanks for the link (depressing as the contents might be). I
think I might also have stuck in a question about the strength of lunar
gravity to see if this was one of those cases where someone knows the
data as something to be memorized, and just hasn't internalized it
enough to use the information in a practical situation.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Feb 11, 7:40 am, Kay Shapero <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
> In article <jh364c$g1...@dont-email.me>, mstem...@walkabout.empros.com

> says...
>
>
>
> > >4:45ish: "PUT YOUR BOOTS ON RIGHT AWAY"? They're actually wearing
> > >HEAVY BOOTS to keep from floating away on the Moon. I hope their
> > >science advisor had the grace to weep bitter tears at that point.
>
> > I assume that you're familiar with this:
> > <http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~det/phy2060/heavyboots.html>,
> > but others might not be.
>
> I wasn't.  Thanks for the link (depressing as the contents might be).  I
> think I might also have stuck in a question about the strength of lunar
> gravity to see if this was one of those cases where someone knows the
> data as something to be memorized, and just hasn't  internalized it
> enough to use the information in a practical situation.

The order in which you ask the questions is going to be significant,
here.

[Stumpy]

"Anthony Nance" <na...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:jh3q6n$gct$1...@dont-email.me...

Ho, ho, ho

I thought this was a song about a semi-catatonic, failed, unpublished SF
writer -

"Planning inventions
That he will not unveil"

First heard on a school bus AM radio

[Suzanne Blom]

Most of them are, but they're mysteries not sf. Most of them are very
angsty as well (and it turns out, I don't like the ones that aren't),
so if you don't like angst, they won't be for you.
An excellent look at especially rural Alaska.

[Kip Williams]

Have they tested centrifugal gravity? I sometimes wonder if it only
works when you're on a body with gravity to start with. In my mental
experiment, I'm floating in a craft. It starts spinning. What would make
me stop floating and obediently start sticking to a "floor"?

Am I missing something here? I hate to sound stupid, but I know that
you're decent folk who would stop taunting me after a few weeks.


Kip W
rasfw

[William George Ferguson]

I can't really answer that satisfactorily. The three Star books are the
only sf she wrote, and the first two were the first books of hers
published. Primarily she's written murder mysteries, with two forays into
'thriller' territory, both featuring the U.S, Coast Guard (not directly
connected, one is set in the Bering Straits and the other off the Florida
coast).. I'm an sf kinda guy, not so much a thriller type, so I can't
speak to them. The Kate books require a huge investment, if you don't the
first one and bounce (there are 19 of them).

I read the first two Star books when they came out, and the last one
somewhat later (the first two weren't considered successful, and there was
a lag between them and the third book). She turned to mysteries because
the Kate Shugak books were extremely successful from the start (currently
closing in on 20 novels in the series). Kate is an Aleut indian who lives
on a homestead in a (fictional) national park, and has worked as an
investigator for the Anchorage District Attorney's office. Stabenow's
second mystery series features an Alaska State Trooper named Liam Campbell.

I left out the reason I mentioned the Star books. In the first, Second
Star, human flight in the cenral axis area of the O'Neill cylinder is a
Checkov's Gun, and it does get taken down from the mantle.

[Greg Goss]

When, in your drifting, you will eventually meet a wall or floor, and
by that time it will be moving at a significant speed. Pain will
result.

In a habitat, the air will mostly (and eventually) be carried along
with the floor. Unless you are absolutely exactly centered on the
axis, you will be accelerated by the air and move towards the floor.

Once you meet the floor, it will start you moving in the correct
direction. Fake gravity and real pain will result.

Depending on your lattitude, you're already moving at something
between 600 and a thousand miles per hour. Ordinary friction with the
floor keeps you synchronized with the Earth's movement. If you were
"motionless" fifteen feet above the Kansas prairie, it wouldn't be the
gravity-inspired vector that hurt more a second or so later.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <9pnuah...@mid.individual.net>,

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> Depending on your lattitude, you're already moving at something
> between 600 and a thousand miles per hour. Ordinary friction with the
> floor keeps you synchronized with the Earth's movement. If you were
> "motionless" fifteen feet above the Kansas prairie, it wouldn't be the
> gravity-inspired vector that hurt more a second or so later.

The collision with Earth in those circumstances would probably not be at
all painful or if painful for a very short time.

--
It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. -- H. L. Mencken

[Joe Pfeiffer]

> In article <jh364c$g14$3...@dont-email.me>, mste...@walkabout.empros.com
> says...
>>
>
>> >
>> >4:45ish: "PUT YOUR BOOTS ON RIGHT AWAY"? They're actually wearing
>> >HEAVY BOOTS to keep from floating away on the Moon. I hope their
>> >science advisor had the grace to weep bitter tears at that point.
>>
>> I assume that you're familiar with this:
>> <http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~det/phy2060/heavyboots.html>,
>> but others might not be.

That's... horrifying.

[Stumpy]

>
>>Have they tested centrifugal gravity? I sometimes wonder if it only
>>works when you're on a body with gravity to start with. In my mental
>>experiment, I'm floating in a craft. It starts spinning. What would make
>>me stop floating and obediently start sticking to a "floor"?
>>
>>Am I missing something here? I hate to sound stupid, but I know that
>>you're decent folk who would stop taunting me after a few weeks.
>
> When, in your drifting, you will eventually meet a wall or floor, and
> by that time it will be moving at a significant speed. Pain will
> result.
>
> In a habitat, the air will mostly (and eventually) be carried along
> with the floor. Unless you are absolutely exactly centered on the
> axis, you will be accelerated by the air and move towards the floor.
>
> Once you meet the floor, it will start you moving in the correct
> direction. Fake gravity and real pain will result.
>

If you are lighter than the rotating air, then you would be accelerated
toward the center axis of the craft.

[Robert Carnegie]

I'm not sure if anything's been put into space that verifies the
extent of equivalence of gravity and acceleration, but astronauts get
high-acceleration training in a centrifuge - in this case, a thing in
a terrestrial laboratory that spins a bar round and round damn fast,
with the astronaut in a capsule at one end of the bar, or sometimes a
science TV presenter, so that they experience several "gravities" of
weight, if we say that weight is what it is. If you haven't seen
this, there are videos online.

[Robert Bannister]

It just shows that sending children to school is a total waste of time.

--
Robert Bannister

[Kip Williams]

An untruth will orbit the world bootless while the truth is putting its
socks on.


Kip W
rasfw

[Kip Williams]

Thanks. I will have to think about this.

Has this been taken into practice?


Kip W
rasfw

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Yeah, they're called "centrifuges", and have been used for everything
from separating out various components of blood to preparing people for
the acceleration of rocket ships and combat jets.

Rotation-based artificial gravity is just a centrifuge IN SPAAAAAACE!




--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

They've also been used for entertainment in some amusement parks;
there's the "rotor", as the one I went to was called, in which you get
spun up so fast that the artificial gravity of the spin pins you against
the wall even when the bottom drops out of the rotor and there's nothing
under your feet.

[Wayne Throop]

: Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com>
: Have they tested centrifugal gravity?

Tested it for what?

: I sometimes wonder if it only works when you're on a body with gravity
: to start with.

Great googly moogly! Whatever would make anybody wonder
such a bizarre thing?

: In my mental experiment, I'm floating in a craft. It starts spinning.

: What would make me stop floating and obediently start sticking to a
: "floor"?

Nothing, of course. Coriolis forces would support you in place. On the
other hand, ventually, the walls would spin up the air, the air would
blow against you and slow you down wrt the wall, so the coriolis forces
would evaporate, and you'd fall to the wall. Well, unless you were right
at the spin axis, in which case there's no centrifugal forces on you
as a whole anyways, even after the air sets you to spinning.

: Am I missing something here?

Dunno. Why would anybody expect swapping reference frames would
would have any physical effects? All you're doing is describing the
same physical situation with centrifugal and coriolis forces balanced
rather than with no forces at all. Shrug. I mean, that's always the
case when you swap reference frames; same events, different description.

: I hate to sound stupid, but I know that you're decent folk who would

: stop taunting me after a few weeks.

Well OK, so that was a *little* bit taunty. But... I'm afraid I'm
in the unfortunate position of not understanding your mental model.
I realize that the one I'm working with is counterintuitive to many folk,
and I don't describe (and it's a bit hard to describe) how coriolis
forces work. So I expect my comments aren't enlightning, even though
they make perfect sense if you're already enlightened. Which goes
back to my first puzzlement above; why would an object "having gravity"
make any difference to how centrifugal and coriolis forces work? (Or,
pseusoforces, if you insist.) They are, after all, just artifacts of
choosing to use non-inertial coordinates.